This 31-page report lays out the case for what the author claims is the “first scientific proof of the existence of UFOs”. Note however that the author doesn’t make the claim that this alleged UFO was an alien spacecraft, only that it was some sort of solid object rather than reflections, etc.
What are your thoughts/explanations for this case?
Why would anyone need scientific proof of UFOs? Doesn’t the “U” mean unidentified? If science could explain it, it would turn into an “IFO.” I see UFOs all the time. But just because I can’t identify them doesn’t mean they’re space vehicles full of aliens. Lots of unexplained events exist, but that doesn’t mean we can jump to conclusions about them just because we can’t explain them right now.
Of course in science you can only prove things wrong and you can never prove them right, because eventually you may observe a situation where what always worked in the past doesn’t work for the new observation (example: Newtonian gravity vs. the perihelion of Mercury), so I take exception to Sparks’ proclamation of “conclusive scientific proof”. Now, I don’t think it’s worthwhile to throw our hands up in the air and say “it’s unsolvable” just because it’s unsolved to this point.
[QUOTE=Shawn1767]
If science could explain it, it would turn into an “IFO.” I see UFOs all the time. But just because I can’t identify them doesn’t mean they’re space vehicles full of aliens. Lots of unexplained events exist, but that doesn’t mean we can jump to conclusions about them just because we can’t explain them right now.
[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. That would be the “God of the gaps” logical fallacy…“Aliens of the gaps” in this case. Sparks doesn’t make that claim, though, so it’s sort of a side point. He only makes the case for a highly maneuverable unidentified flying object that can disappear from sight, radar, and ELINT (the latter could easily be the UFO simply turning its own radar off) all at the same time and reappear in much the same way. l wonder if it was a test flight of some sort of spy device, but there very well may be a more prosaic explanation that hasn’t been offered yet.
I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the nuances of how radar or ELINT works, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable can offer some possible solutions to this puzzle. I suggest actually reading the report, BTW.
Why would you need scientific proof of UFO’s if you’re using the definition “unidentified flying object” specifically instead of “alien spececraft.” The first has been proven to exist countless times, the latter hasnt.
You say this is a proof of UFO’s existing and then point out that he doesnt mean aliens. It is implicit in your wording that you mean alien spacecraft. Also the fact that you added an s onto UFO implies there are similar ones to that specific example, other than others which are simply unidentified. I dont know, maybe Im judging your language a bit too much.
If you dont mean alien spacecraft, you simply mean a documented case of a UFO sighting, and yes that would be the case.
Regardless, I am not reading 31 pages of something Im not qualified to determine the outcome of.
This was apparently an unidentified flying object with very interesting capabilities, whose actions were simultaneously verified via multiple channels; visual, ELINT (passive radar detection), ground radar, and onboard radar (only one time for the last of these, when the object was within range). The question is whether it was actually an object or only an apparent object.
[QUOTE=DaveBfd]
You say this is a proof of UFO’s existing and then point out that he doesnt mean aliens. It is implicit in your wording that you mean alien spacecraft. Also the fact that you added an s onto UFO implies there are similar ones to that specific example, other than others which are simply unidentified. I dont know, maybe Im judging your language a bit too much.
[/QUOTE]
That was Sparks’ wording, not mine.
[QUOTE=DaveBfd]
If you dont mean alien spacecraft, you simply mean a documented case of a UFO sighting, and yes that would be the case.
[/QUOTE]
A puzzling UFO event is what it is. Attributing it to alien spacecraft is certainly unjustified unless there’s some link connecting the event unambiguously with ET (there isn’t).
Regardless, I am not reading 31 pages of something Im not qualified to determine the outcome of.
[/QUOTE]
No one’s forcing you to.
I’m not going to read a 31 page report, however, I have thoughts.
Whether or not this is the most significant single case, the greatest support for the existence of what I’m willing to call “apparently guided flying objects” (the term UFO can envelop a lot more than what we’re talking about, however, terms like “flying saucer” is too limiting, and “spacecraft” is presumptuous. I say “apparently guided” because our perception is that they are guided but this could be an illusion) I think the real evidence comes from the sheer volume of sightings. Even if 90% of all claims are explained by some “normal” means, it still leaves a staggering amount of incidence that are not explainable. Even the best evidence is dismissible if it only happens once. An endless supply of mediocre evidence, on the other hand, is very hard to ignore.
BTW, I have a couple of my own personal stories, if you’re interested.
While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, banal claims do not merit attention. I’m not clear what OP is saying.
The report is an excerpt from the UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd edition. The .pdf does not appear to be searchable. Wikipedia reports that Project Bluebook concluded that the UFO was an ordinary jet airliner. The .pdf seems to think imply that various intelligence services were involved in this matter, though I couldn’t locate the documentation for that perception. But I only skimmed the article.
Sparks’ claim: “The “upscope” incident indicates a highly maneuverable air-borne vehicle carrying an S-band radar transmitter and capable of circling an RB-47 jet aircraft flying at about 520 mph.” (and also capable of hiding its existence)
I think such a remarkable claim merits some attention. Hopefully someone will take a stab at it.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
The report is an excerpt from the UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd edition. The .pdf does not appear to be searchable. Wikipedia reports that Project Bluebook concluded that the UFO was an ordinary jet airliner. The .pdf seems to think imply that various intelligence services were involved in this matter, though I couldn’t locate the documentation for that perception. But I only skimmed the article.
[/QUOTE]
Blue Book’s explanation didn’t work.
“…and the supposed misidentification of an airliner as a UFO when records prove it was in fact nowhere near the RB-47 and could not possibly have been involved. (Klass claimed that no relevant records existed; in reality, the airliner had just survived a near collision with another airliner, and many passengers were injured, so there certainly were traceable accident reports.)”
…not to mention that the alleged behavior of the thing didn’t match that of an airliner.
BTW, can anyone find Philip Klass’ “white paper” on the incident? That would be very useful to have.
The fact that the USAF stopped investigating so-called “UFOs” years ago, ought to mean something.
And now, when everybody has a digital camera or camera/phone-how come there are no new pictures?
All that the UFO Community seems to have is endlessly recycled stuff from the 1950’s/60’s (from a time of national paranoia).
Do people still attaned UFO Conferences? Can you make a living writing about this stuff?
First off, there are plenty of newer UFO recordings. While not exactly new anymore, the Phoenix lights, recorded from many different locations in 1997, are much more recent than the '50s - 70’s. The space shuttle Discovery recorded unknown objects in 2001. A video taken by a security guard in Turkey in 2008 has been called “the most important UFO images ever”. And this year a British police helicopter has footage of unidentified objects that it was pursuing. These are just examples from a very quick internet search by checking Wikipedia and then Youtube for a corresponding video. A more in-depth search would likely reveal more.
Youtube is littered with recent UFO footage. Most of it is not very good, however, because its taken with inferior recording devices, i.e. cell phones. Further, the videos are obviously not taken by trained people, as most old famous photos were taken by professional photographers who happened to see objects when out for photo shoots, or military personnel or police trained in observation.
In the end, there is probably more photos and videos today than ever before. However, enough fakes have been perpetrated and enough explained by the mundane that it’s easy to assume even the best evidence is either falsified or an error in perception.
Then it wouldn’t be proof of anything, would it?
I remember a movie, a pseudo-documentary from the early 1950s with pretty much these claims - though the radar back then was more primitive. It ended with sightings around Washington DC, which really happened. I personally started reading about UFOs 45 years ago, and I’m still waiting for evidence.
A good thing to read is “The Great Airship Mystery” a book about a spate of sightings of motor driven airships in the 1890s. Not aliens, there were close encounters of the third kind with the pilot, who was from New England, supposedly. There were cases of multiple people seeing them, and much of the same testimony we get from UFOs. Very convincing - except we know for sure these things never existed. It is out of print, but your local library may have a copy.
Sure, those are common, too. There’s a facility about 15 miles from here where you can even ride on one of those guided flying objects. I’ve done so dozens of times.
Quote:
A good thing to read is “The Great Airship Mystery” a book about a spate of sightings of motor driven airships in the 1890s. Not aliens, there were close encounters of the third kind with the pilot, who was from New England, supposedly. There were cases of multiple people seeing them, and much of the same testimony we get from UFOs. Very convincing - except we know for sure these things never existed. It is out of print, but your local library may have a copy.
I recall something along these lines-in General Eisenhower’s memoirs, he mentioned that an “airship” was seen in the skies over Abilene, Texas.
Since this was at the time of the Spanish-American War, it was plausible to the people of the time.
Of course, nobody h(least of all Spain) had airships at the time.
Nothing about Ike was in the book. Interesting. There were reports from that general region.
Most of the sitings were from the early 1890s, and I don’t recall any claims of alien (in the earthly sense) pilots. I guess we were short on xenophobia then.
Not only have I personally observed numerous UFOs I have been abducted by them three times now.
My most recent abductors were a race of ETI Amazons. Wowie zowie were they ever good-looking,
once I got used to the green skin!
Unfortunately I did not have my i-Berry with me during any of these contacts. I now keep my i-Berry
within reach at all times so as to be able to provide undeniable evidence of what happens next time.
When I think of all the video royalties money I have missed out on I could kick myself!
Forget that. Next time they abduct you tell them that you are suing for joint custody of the green skinned babies they will be producing. You’ll make a mint.
Klass’ work on the case appears as two chapters in his book UFOs Explained from 1974
I’ve reread the book many times over, and Klass made a convincing case that the phenomena were a combination of misidentified visual phenomena and radar echoes. (This isn’t just an off-the-cuff “explanation” – Klass goes into some detail, and he obtained the operating manual and specs for the kind of radar used, and his explanations invoke the peculiarities of that radar).
I see that the pro-UFO forces don’t buy Klass’ explanation, and claim that he makes impossible suggestions, but I’ll have to have a look at those.
Here’s a brief description of Klass’ work that pretty much tallies with my recollections (it’s been a few years since I read his book):
I’m pretty sure solid objects have been proven to exist already. Is there some reason to believe this is a particularly special solid object? Because it flew? Humans have been making flying solid objects for a century.